ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Yevamos 76
YEVAMOS 76, 77 - Dedicated by Eddie and Esther Turkel in prayer for a
Refu'ah Shelemah to Yitzchak ben Lanah. May the Talmud Torah d'Rabim
sponsored in his honor protect him and gain him a full and speedy recovery.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel validates a hole in the Milah that became
stopped-up - as long as the Zera does not tear it open again as it passes
(b) Rava establishes Shmuel by a hole in the Atarah. Shmuel cannot be
speaking about a hole in the lower part of the Milah - because there, even
if the flesh is cut-off completely, he is still Kasher.
(c) Shmuel is certainly not speaking by the top part of the Milah - because
there, the fusion will not tear open when the Zera passes through; that only
happens close to the point where it leaves the body.
(d) One checks whether the fusion will tear open as a result of the Zera
passing through - by placing hot barley-bread by the back passage, causing
an emission, following which it is easy to ascertain whether the fusion tore
open or not.
(a) We ask why it is necessary to use such extreme measures - whether one
cannot find a simpler way of causing an emission, seeing as most people are
not like Ya'akov Avinu, who never had an emission before he married Leah
(see Tosfos DH 'she'Lo').
(b) Abaye therefore suggests bringing the colored clothes of a woman.
(c) Rava refutes this because not everyone is like Barzilai ha'Gil'adi
(whose deire for women caused him to age prematurely) - meaning that most
people are not so adulterous, that merely seeing a woman's colored clothes
will cause them to have an emission.
(d) So we test the fusion - using the method that was suggested initially
(taking hot barley-bread ... ).
(a) A hole renders a person Pasul - because, as a result, the Zera drips
instead of flowing (and is therefore not fit to germinate).
(b) When the Tana of the Beraisa, after stating that if the hole became
stopped-up, it is Kasher once more, adds 'and this is a P'sul that returns
to its original Hechsher' - he means to preclude a membrane that grew over a
wound on the lung of an animal, which remains Pasul.
(c) Rav Idi bar Avin told Abaye that the way to stop-up a hole was to bring
a grain of barley, fat and a large ant - the grain to scratch the skin
around the location of the hole, the fat to rub over the wound, and the
large ant which one allows to bite the wound before cutting off its head, to
serve as a clamp to hold the ends of the hole tight until it grows together.
A grain of barley was used rather than a metal implement - because metal
causes wounding or swelling.
(d) All this would not work with a grown-up - because the skin tends to peel
after it has begun to heal.
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna says - that someone who urinates from two places is
(b) His father Rav Huna said that two women who go through the motions of an
immoral act together - are Pasul li'Kehunah (because this makes them Zonos).
(c) Rava said that the Halachah is neither like the father nor like the son.
(d) Because, even Rebbi Elazar, who maintains that a Panuy who had relations
with a Penuyah turns her into a Zonah, only says that by a man and a woman,
but not by two women, whose behavior is indecent, but does not render them
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah derives from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yavo
P'tzu'a Daka u'K'rus Shafchah *bi'K'hal Hashem*" - that they are permitted
to marry a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres, who are not considered a
(b) They asked Rav Sheishes - whether a P'tzu'a Daka Kohen retains his
Kedushah and is therefore forbidden to marry a Giyores and a Shifchah
Meshuchreres, or whether he has lost it and is permitted to marry them.
(c) Rav Sheishes resolves their She'eilah from the Beraisa 'P'tzu'a Daka
Yisrael Mutar bi'Nesinah' - from which we see that a Yisrael loses his
Kedushas Yisrael (otherwise he would not be permitted to marry a Nesinah,
who is one of the seven nations).
(d) Rava initially refutes Rav Sheishes' proof, on the grounds that, when
the Torah writes "Lo Tischatein Bam", it refers to marrying them when they
are still Nochrim, in case they lead one astray after their idols. Once they
convert, it is only the Rabbanan who forbade marrying them, and that decree
did not extend to those men who are unable to have children.
(a) When it was pointed out to him that the Tana even permits a Mamzer (who
*is* able to have children) to marry a Nesinah, he changed from his provious
explanation - to explain that the decree of Chazal did not extend to *any*
(b) Rava changed his entire interpretation of the Pasuk "Lo Tischatein
Bam" - because, he pointed out, before a Nochri converts, marriage is not
applicable to them, only after they convert.
(c) Consequently, he concludes, Rav Sheishes was right in inferring from the
fact that a P'tzu'a Daka is permitted to marry a Nesinah, that he must have
lost his Kedushah, and that a Ptzu'a Daka Kohen is therefore permitted to
marry a Giyores and a Meshuchreres.
(a) The problem with the Pasuk "va'Yischatein Shlomoh es bas Par'oh" is -
that we just said that there is no marriage with a Nochris before she
(b) To answer that he converted her clashes with what we learned above (on
24b.) that they did not accept converts in the days of David and Shlomoh. We
answer however, that that was only because they were afraid that the
conversion was purely for the sake of Yisrael's great wealth - a reason that
would not apply to bas Par'oh, who did not need their wealth.
(c) Even assuming that Shlomoh really did convert bas Par'oh - we are left
with the problem that she was a first generation Egyptian, who is forbidden
even if she converts.
(d) We know that the 'modern' Egyptians (of those days) were those who had
originally lived there - because of Rebbi Yehudah, who testified that he had
a Chaver called Menimin, a disciple of Rebbi Akiva who was also an Egyptian
(a) Rav Papa proves from a Pasuk in Melachim that in fact, Shlomoh did not
marry bas Par'oh. It says that he did - because he was so fond of her that
it was as if he had married.
(b) Our Mishnah stated 'P'tzu'a Daka u'K'rus Shafchah Mutarim be'Giyores
u'Meshuchreres, ve'Einan Asurin Ela mi'la'Vo be'Kahal'.
We cannot infer
from the first half of the statement that a P'tzu'a Daka is forbidden (to
prove Rav Sheishes wrong) - because from the second half, that je is
permitted. So we cannot infer anything.
(a) The Chumra that ...
(b) Rebbi Shimon is even more lenient than the Tana Kama with regard to a
Mitzri. He learns a 'Kal va'Chomer': - If, where the men are prohibited
forever, the women are permitted immediately (by the Amonim and the
Mo'avim), then, where they are only prohibited for three generations (the
Mitzri'im), the women should certainly be.permitted immediately.
- ... an Amoni have over a Mitzri is - that the women are permitted.
- ... a Mitzri have over an Amoni is - that a third generation Mitzri is permitted.
(c) The Chachamim in the Mishnah replied to him - that if it is a Halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai, they would accept it, but if it was his own 'Kal
va'Chomer', then they had a Kashya on it.
(a) When Shaul ha'Melech asked Avner "ben Mi Zeh ha'N'ar?", why could he not
have been referring to ...
1. ... David himself - because David was his armor-bearer. How could he not
have known him?
(b) What he was asking him was whether Yishai descended from Peretz (in
which case he was destined to become king - which frightened Shaul), or from
Zerach, in which case he could be a dignitary without becming king.
2. ... to David's father Yishai himself - because Yishai was a well'known
public figure (as Rav or Rebbi Aba said, he used to go out at the head of
six hundred thousand men.
(c) The connotation of the name 'Peretz' is - that he can break a path
through somebody else's property (something theat a king had the right to
(d) The cause of Shaul's anxiety - was the fact that when David wore Shaul's
armor (to go and fight Goli'as), it fitted him perfectly, despite the fact
that Shaul was a giant of a man, head and shoulders taller than anyone else.
(a) Do'eg ha'Edomi poured fuel on to the flames. He retorted - that, better
still, they should enquire whether David was even permitted to enter into
the Kahal (to marry a Jewess (let alone become king), because he descended
from Rus ha'Mo'avi'ah.
(b) Avner replied - that the Torah writes "Amoni u'Mo'avi", implying 've'Lo
Amonis u'Mo'avis' (that the women are permitted).
(c) We Darshen 'Amoni ve'Lo Amonis, Mo'avi ve'Lo Mo'avis', but not 'Mamzer
ve'Lo Mamzeres' - because the very word Mamzer implies 'Mum Zar' (a blemish
of foreignness), so what difference could there possibly between a male
Mamzer and a female?
(d) We do not Darshen 'Mitzri ve'Lo Mitzris' - because the real reason that
we Darshen "Amoni" 've'Lo Amonis ... is not so much intrinsically (since the
male form usually incorporates the female form), but because the Torah adds
" ... because they did come into the desert and offer you bread and water;
and it is men who are expacted to do this, not women.
(a) Do'eg attempted to refute the explanation that it is not the way of
women to provide food to foreign people outside their land - by arguing that
it is up to the men to provide the men, and the women, to provide for the
(b) The King changed his description of David from "Na'ar" to an "Elem" -
because 'Elem' is from the root 'Nis'almah' (hidden), as if to say 'the
Halachah is hidden from you; Go and ask in the Beis ha'Medrash.
(c) Just when Do'eg was about to pronounce David, Pasul - Amasa ben Ish
(alias Yisra he'Yisre'eili) put on a sword and announced that he would
pierce anyone who did not listen to him. Because he had received a tradition
from the Beis-Din of Shmuel ha'Ramasi that "Amoni u'Mo'avi" 've'Lo Amonis
(d) Yisra ha'Yisre'eili was his real name; and the reason that the Pasuk in
Divrei ha'Yamim calls him Yisra ha'Yishme'eili, is because he girded his
sword like a Yishme'eili.